[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by cryptowonderdruginvogue

get over it

in 2008 i will.

but will the world be able to get over this moron's fuckups so easily? will iraq get over it?

[gmku]

We know how I feel about our president, right?

I'm a vet, an ex-Air Force officer. I can tell you that 90 percent of the people in the military have no respect for the kind of incompetence this president has shown. Like Johnson and Nixon, he's the kind of president who does more to tarnish the idea of serving one's country than he does it any good.

See sig.

[Tokolosh]

Last week a dutch tv channel showed a documentary about recruitment of american troops in the US.
I wasn't surprised to hear that if you join, you'll probably land up in Iraq, straight after basic training. Obvious.
They also went on to say that every soldier recieves a minimum sum of at least $38.000 when they finish their service.

The thing that bothers me, is that officers get sent out to find future recruits at schools in poor rural areas of the US.
Many of the young men they find in those parts, don't have much of a future when they leave school.
Unemployment is high, so a lot of them will automatically choose a career in the marines.

What most of these students don't know, is that when they come back, they're basically forgotten by the army.
Left out in the gutter, so to speak. A large percentage land up spending the 38 grand they made on booze,
gambling or psychiatric help because of war traumas.
Suicide is high amongst ex-combatants.

I know that America aren't the only ones that use this method in so-called "times of war".

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

Last week a dutch tv channel showed a documentary about recruitment of american troops in the US.
I wasn't surprised to hear that if you join, you'll probably land up in Iraq, straight after basic training. Obvious.
They also went on to say that every soldier recieves a minimum sum of at least $38.000 when they finish their service.

The thing that bothers me, is that officers get sent out to find future recruits at schools in poor rural areas of the US.
Many of the young men they find in those parts, don't have much of a future when they leave school.
Unemployment is high, so a lot of them will automatically choose a career in the marines.

What most of these students don't know, is that when they come back, they're basically forgotten by the army.
Left out in the gutter, so to speak. A large percentage land up spending the 38 grand they made on booze,
gambling or psychiatric help because of war traumas.
Suicide is high amongst ex-combatants.

I know that America aren't the only ones that use this method in so-called "times of war".

that happens where i live. it's tragic.

[Rob Instigator]

can you imagine getting just 38 thousand for a 4 year hitch?
ouch! and most of that is in the GI BILL which allocates it to housing or education.

[Tokolosh]

Let's not forget that a lot of these guys come back shell-shocked.
They can't talk to anybody about it, 'cause nobody cares about what they've been through...

I have the urge to watch First Blood again.

[Bastian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it was so partitioned i believe by the british empire, which sectioned off kuwait as a "nipple" from which to draw oil.
(that's why when saddam invaded kuwait he said that "kuwait doesn't exist"-- this was not understood in its historical context by the media).

What was to be understood in a historical context? Are you suggesting that Kuwait is an illegitimate country whose terrain should be part of Iraq, so Saddam's invasion was merely a not so nice try for a legitimate reunification? It changes absolutely nothing about the fact that Saddam invaded an independent neigbouring country to get it's oil, and raped and killed lots of civilians down there.

I remember that back in 1991, everyone was protesting against America with the slogan "No Blood for Oil!". Noone ever protested with that slogan against Saddam's aggression.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

anyway, the country was held together with the iron fist of tyrannical governments. remove the tyrannical government and the country will splinter-- simple enough.

Remove the tyrannical government, replace it with a federal government and things could work out. A federal government which shares administrative rights among the different parts of the country, giving equal power to Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds. This way it can still be one united country without having to face the horrors of ethnic parcellation.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

iraq cannot be held together without force. but then there are all sorts of pressures, like
a) turkey does not want a free kurdistan

Neither does Iran, Syria or any other neighbouring country with a kurdish minority. Actually, it's not very smart of Syria and Iran to do their best to destabilize Iraq. A break-up of Iraq along ethnical lines would destabilize the entire region and would fuel oppressed minorities in neighbouring countries to increase their strife for independence. Kurds in Turkey and Iran would want to join a free post-Iraqi Kurdistan, a nightmare for both Ankara and Teheran. If Kurds can get their own state, other minorities will want one too. For example Balochs in southern Iran and southwestern Pakistan. Irans Azerbaijanians, who are the second largest ethnic group in Iran and make up 25% of Iran's population might increasingly want to join Azerbaijan, etc.

Ethnical parcellation of Iraq or any other country in the region will lead to catastrophy and should be prevented at any costs!

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

as long as there are u.s. troops in iraq they will be seen as invaders and catalyze the insurgents, i'm afraid. this is a humpty dumpty situation-- "all the king horses, & all the king's men / couldn't put humpty together again".

the point is that for the u.s. to stay there is kinda pointless. and the longer the troops stay, the greater the impulse towards insurrection.

If the US troops leave, the real slaughtering sets in. Already now, the majority of victims of so-called insurgents are Iraqis. A premature withdrawal of the US will give neighbouring countries the opportunity to increase their influence on Iraq, which will basicly be a proxy war of shia Iran and sunni Saudi Arabia + other arab states. It's better to have a "neutral" force present that is neither shia nor sunni nor kurdish.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

u.n. troops maybe... they are not so politically polarizing (unless of course you're in idaho).

U.N. troops will either be seen as much as occupying infidel foreigeners as US troops, or they might come from a muslim country which will prevent them from being neutral in the sunni-shia conflict. Not to forget that the UN usually fails miserably when trying to prevent civil war parties to slaughter each other..

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

ps- in my diseased mind, the best possible outcome is for a peaceful disintegration of iraq in which the kurds have their own state, the sunnis have their own little triangle, and the shias have their own state under the aegis of iran. if everyone is lucky, this would happen peacefully and without much ethnic cleansing. but we'll see...

If Iran strengthens it's influence on shia Iraq, the sunni arab states will freak out even more about Iran's strife for local hegemony. Iran already has a proxy and allies who pushes it's influence on the arab world far west: Syria, Hezbollah and it even supports sunni Hamas with weapons. What we are facing in the region now is some sort of a cold war between arabs and persians, between shias and sunnis. A cold war which has already turned hot in Iraq. Not to forget that Iran's nuclear program is frightening arab states alot. If it's not stopped, there will be a nuclear arms race in the region. If Iran gets the bomb, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia will have to get it too. And then the real fun starts.

[ricechex]

The wall the U.S is building in Sunni territory designed to protect them from Shia terrorists is not a good idea in avoiding "ethnic parcellation"..they're going backwards with that idea out of desperation.

Replacing the tryranny with a federal govt (democracy) is something they have been trying for 5 years, so i don't know how things could suddenly work out now.

[!@#$%!]

bastian, excellent post & thanks for your thoughtful replies; you obviously know more about this than me, so i have some answers and mostly further questions.

Originally Posted by Bastian

What was to be understood in a historical context? Are you suggesting that Kuwait is an illegitimate country whose terrain should be part of Iraq, so Saddam's invasion was merely a not so nice try for a legitimate reunification? It changes absolutely nothing about the fact that Saddam invaded an independent neigbouring country to get it's oil, and raped and killed lots of civilians down there.

that is "objectively" true, and i agree every time tanks are involved it's a bad scene. i was not justifying saddam's action, i simply pointed out how they were misunderstood. understanding doesn't mean compliance. the american media often promotes ignorance and historical near-sightedness, which is one of the reasons why americans are so ignorant of the world around them. along those lines, i would be very much opposed by a chinese invasion of taiwan, but i would be able to understand why china would want to do that.

Originally Posted by Bastian

I remember that back in 1991, everyone was protesting against America with the slogan "No Blood for Oil!". Noone ever protested with that slogan against Saddam's aggression.

excellent point. however in 1991 there was an ongoin problem in east timor & nothing was being done about it because there was no oil. the liberation of kuwait didnt happen because people were nice, it happened because of oil-- part of the carter doctrine. which was undoubtedly a good thing for kuwaitis. i don't think the majority of the world had a problem with kuwait's liberation however-- american troops acted in accordance to u.n. resolutions and in compliance with international law.

the real fuckup i suppose was to encourage minorities to rebel agains saddam without backing them up. but backing them up would have resulted in the mess we have today. they should not have been encouraged to rebel if there were no plans for an invasion.

Originally Posted by Bastian

Remove the tyrannical government, replace it with a federal government and things could work out. A federal government which shares administrative rights among the different parts of the country, giving equal power to Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds. This way it can still be one united country without having to face the horrors of ethnic parcellation.

a federal government is perhaps yes the best possible outcome but i wonder if it can be put in place without bloodshed. the u.s. federal government had its own crisis during the civil war. there are other cases of more peaceful federal governments (like germany) but i don't know if this could work in iraq which has a long history of centralism. these things are in part cultural and difficult to impose form the outside.

Originally Posted by Bastian

Neither does Iran, Syria or any other neighbouring country with a kurdish minority. Actually, it's not very smart of Syria and Iran to do their best to destabilize Iraq. A break-up of Iraq along ethnical lines would destabilize the entire region and would fuel oppressed minorities in neighbouring countries to increase their strife for independence. Kurds in Turkey and Iran would want to join a free post-Iraqi Kurdistan, a nightmare for both Ankara and Teheran. If Kurds can get their own state, other minorities will want one too. For example Balochs in southern Iran and southwestern Pakistan. Irans Azerbaijanians, who are the second largest ethnic group in Iran and make up 25% of Iran's population might increasingly want to join Azerbaijan, etc.

interesting about the azerbaijanians. and yes, iran or syria are not always very smart, countries ruled by ayatollahs and inherited dictators aren't models of anything good in my mind.

Originally Posted by Bastian

Ethnical parcellation of Iraq or any other country in the region will lead to catastrophy and should be prevented at any costs!

any costs? sure there has to be a limit-- the question is where is it and who should bear those costs? the only way that i can see this happening (and i might be wrong) is by having another strongman supressing dissent-- i am not sure that a democracy would be able to hold the country together, in great part because iraq does not have a culture of democracy, and in part also because democracies are traditionally "weaker" in dealing with internal conflict-- democracies are harder to hold together than police states. the u.s. armed forces cannot become dictators of iraq though.

Originally Posted by Bastian

If the US troops leave, the real slaughtering sets in. Already now, the majority of victims of so-called insurgents are Iraqis. A premature withdrawal of the US will give neighbouring countries the opportunity to increase their influence on Iraq, which will basicly be a proxy war of shia Iran and sunni Saudi Arabia + other arab states. It's better to have a "neutral" force present that is neither shia nor sunni nor kurdish.

i agree, and that is a reason for the troops to stay. but for how long? on the subject of preventing carnage, sudan presented more immediate reasons to send troops in. but i agree... problem is that historically the "neutral" force has been the baathists!! and can u.s. troops stay indefinitely? should irq be "pacified" and ruled as a colony?

Originally Posted by Bastian

U.N. troops will either be seen as much as occupying infidel foreigeners as US troops, or they might come from a muslim country which will prevent them from being neutral in the sunni-shia conflict. Not to forget that the UN usually fails miserably when trying to prevent civil war parties to slaughter each other..

probably right. that's the reason why i mentioned humpty dumpty-- things fucked beyond repair.

Originally Posted by Bastian

If Iran strengthens it's influence on shia Iraq, the sunni arab states will freak out even more about Iran's strife for local hegemony. Iran already has a proxy and allies who pushes it's influence on the arab world far west: Syria, Hezbollah and it even supports sunni Hamas with weapons. What we are facing in the region now is some sort of a cold war between arabs and persians, between shias and sunnis. A cold war which has already turned hot in Iraq. Not to forget that Iran's nuclear program is frightening arab states alot. If it's not stopped, there will be a nuclear arms race in the region. If Iran gets the bomb, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia will have to get it too. And then the real fun starts.

yes, excellent & well-informed points. those conflicts exist above and beyond the u.s. presence there, underneath as well, and they were only masked by saddam's regime. but do you think this is a conflict that can be resolved peacefully, or do you think that things will inevitably come to a head in iraq? i am a rather pessimistic about this situation-- i think that democracy in iraq will bring on the splintering of the country and eventual civil war, and that only a return to a nationalist tyrant could possibly hold the country together. of course im not prophesizing, and i'm no expert.

thanks again for your excellent post & i look forward to continuing this conversation.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by ricechex

The wall the U.S is building in Sunni territory designed to protect them from Shia terrorists is not a good idea in avoiding "ethnic parcellation.

Wall Building seems to be a metaphor for this Administration - US/Mex border, Israel, now in Iraq.....hell last night at the height of rush hour the cops had Park Ave walled off, no one could cross the street or proceed south for 15 mins, so Georgie Boy could leave his RNC fundraiser. Looking at the dozens of cops and the barriers put up I imagine NYC easily spent 50K on protecting the president's fundraising. Thats a lot of summer teen jobs.

[MellySingsDoom]

Originally Posted by tesla69

Wall Building seems to be a metaphor for this Administration - US/Mex border, Israel, now in Iraq.....

Ditto the UK with the laughably-name "peace" walls in Northern Ireland.

[Bastian]

Originally Posted by ricechex

The wall the U.S is building in Sunni territory designed to protect them from Shia terrorists is not a good idea in avoiding "ethnic parcellation"..they're going backwards with that idea out of desperation.

There is a difference between setting up a wall to prevent sectarian violence and the parcelling i.e. division of a nation state into several smaller nation states. The later will have a great effect on neighbouring states, an effect on other states' minorities and their urge for independence, while the wall is exclusively an internal issue of Iraq.

[Bastian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

that is "objectively" true, and i agree every time tanks are involved it's a bad scene. i was not justifying saddam's action, i simply pointed out how they were misunderstood. understanding doesn't mean compliance. the american media often promotes ignorance and historical near-sightedness, which is one of the reasons why americans are so ignorant of the world around them. along those lines, i would be very much opposed by a chinese invasion of taiwan, but i would be able to understand why china would want to do that.

Well, there can some sort of historian's understanding of Iraq's urge for annexation of Kuwait, but I don't think that this would have any impact on the moral judgement of any one-sided action taken by Iraq to unify or re-unify with Kuwait. I believe that Saddam's actions were understood, even by the media, as what they were: expansion of the national borders of his state at costs of a neighbouring state, highly motivated by the desire for the natural resources of that state (spell: Oil) which Saddam tried to justified by pre-Iraqi history, i.e. Kuwait being a part of what later formed Iraq.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

excellent point. however in 1991 there was an ongoin problem in east timor & nothing was being done about it because there was no oil. the liberation of kuwait didnt happen because people were nice, it happened because of oil-- part of the carter doctrine.

I believe it is problematic to reduce the reasons why the USA (or any other country) does not intervene in a conflict to the lack of oil. Fights over resources (or access to resources. always keep in mind that the US is not stealing the oil of regions it invades, but merely secures world market access of that oil, at world market prices) surely play a role, but it's more complicated than that.

I don't know enough about East Timor to comment on that conflict, but I'd like to point out that a few years after the '91 Gulf War, the US was involved, among other conflicts, in the Yugoslav Civil War, and later in the Kosovo War, both wars that had absolutely nothing to do with oil. (Well, before Nato/US got involved, a lot of people said the US won't intervene because there's no oil there, still they did eventually)

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

which was undoubtedly a good thing for kuwaitis. i don't think the majority of the world had a problem with kuwait's liberation however-- american troops acted in accordance to u.n. resolutions and in compliance with international law.

Yes, and people tend to forget that the '91 war was also fought not only by the USA or a coalition of the willing but by a large international force including many european and arab nations.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the real fuckup i suppose was to encourage minorities to rebel agains saddam without backing them up.

That was indeed a major fuck-up and unforgivable. And I'm afraid that the US might do that mistake again by an early pullout. I'd be pretty pissed to see the Kurds being betrayed again by their american allies. There's a saying: It's harmless to have the US as an enemy, but dangerous to have it as a friend. I believe that saying originates in the 1991 betrayel of the rebellion against Saddam.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

but backing them up would have resulted in the mess we have today. they should not have been encouraged to rebel if there were no plans for an invasion.

Hmm, I think that an early 1991 regime change would have had a rather positive effect. It would have saved the Iraqis from 12 more years of Saddam's systematic destruction of Iraqi society and of sanctions that would starve the population while Saddam used his oil-for-food money to build more palaces, therefore increasing chances of a faster reconstruction of the country and it's new government system.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

interesting about the azerbaijanians. and yes, iran or syria are not always very smart, countries ruled by ayatollahs and inherited dictators aren't models of anything good in my mind.

Well, I actually only described one aspect of their policies towards Iraq and left out another, contradicting one: They do hurt their own interests by destablizing Iraq because of the dangers of parcellation, but there's one aspect to destablizing that is not to be overseen.. In this regard, the governments of Iran and Syria are actually smart: They do know that they cannot allow a stable, democratic Iraq to succeed, because such an Iraq would serve as a role model towards their own population and would directly endanger their power over them.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i agree, and that is a reason for the troops to stay. but for how long? on the subject of preventing carnage, sudan presented more immediate reasons to send troops in. but i agree... problem is that historically the "neutral" force has been the baathists!! and can u.s. troops stay indefinitely? should irq be "pacified" and ruled as a colony?

I believe that the troops should stay as long as they are needed and will be helpful. That might take some more years, nobody knows. And the Iraq war is not only about Iraq but part of a larger struggle, so that has to be kept in mind. A premature pullout would not only affect Iraq and leave it to civil war but would also revitalize jihadists in their fight against the West, Israel, islamic reformers and everybody else they consider to be worth slaughtering. An american defeat in Iraq would raise hopes that the same will happen to the USA what happened when another super power was defeated by islamist warriors and shortly afterwards disintegrated. I'm talking about the soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s and the collaps of the USSR in the same decade. The jihadists believe THEY defeated and destroyed the USSR.. if they can defeat the USA in Iraq, they will be highly motivated to continue their jihad against America and the west until the great satan and his allies are finally defeated and destroyed like the formerly invincible USSR.

Hmm, I wouldn't call the Baathists "neutral", not even in quotation marks. Saddam's regime was the regime of Sunnis over Shias and Kurds.

Sudan really needs an international troop presence to prevent further genocide and ethnic cleansing, but that's going off-topic here.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

thanks again for your excellent post & i look forward to continuing this conversation.

You are welcome.. luckily, I had some spare time today to post on a message board.
I'm not half as good informed as I'd like to be but it helps to spend a lot of time online, reading news and political blogs..

[ricechex]

Originally Posted by Bastian

There is a difference between setting up a wall to prevent sectarian violence and the parcelling i.e. division of a nation state into several smaller nation states. The later will have a great effect on neighbouring states, an effect on other states' minorities and their urge for independence, while the wall is exclusively an internal issue of Iraq.

Either way, it still "parcell"s along ethniticities/sects. Dividing i think, is a bad idea. I remember Biden's plan that involved that idea. Let's hope it doesn't come down to that, b/c we could be seeing the progression of that theory with the wall being an early sign. It definitely won't work.

[SynthethicalY]

Congress passes law to start withdrawing them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...070425/us-iraq

[!@#$%!]

yep, the law passed. now what???

[SynthethicalY]

Bush is going to veto it, and that's that. Dems don't have the majority.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SynthethicalY

Bush is going to veto it, and that's that. Dems don't have the majority.

sure enough, but it's a major showdown

[SynthethicalY]

Yeah, I wonder How Rove will handle this.

[!@#$%!]

rove is a dirty fucker.

(i wanted to say this to someone else on the board, but i let it out here, ha ha ha).